Robert George Doumani

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board decisions ordering the issuance of demolition permits for thirteen buildings.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the respondents filed their appeal after the time limit in section 3 of the City of Toronto Act, 1985 had expired.

The Board had found this time limit conflicted with the Planning Act and assumed jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's jurisdictional decision, holding that the two statutes could co-exist without conflict.

However, the Court found no reason to doubt the Board's decision on the merits.

Leave to appeal was granted solely on the jurisdictional question.

The City of Ottawa appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that allowed an official plan amendment proposed by the respondent, which the City Council had previously refused.

The central issue was whether the OMB erred in law by failing to 'have regard to' the Council's decision under s. 2.1 of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB is not required to apply a highly deferential standard of review to Council decisions, but must carefully scrutinize and consider them.

Finding that the OMB had properly analyzed and addressed each of the Council's reasons for refusal, the majority dismissed the appeal.

The appellant developer appealed two Ontario Municipal Board decisions that upheld a development charge of $287,904.22 paid to the respondent municipality.

The appellant argued the municipality's Commissioner erred by relying on standard design flow guidelines rather than actual water usage and conservation measures to determine water demand under the applicable by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the by-law's language was clear and the Commissioner's exercise of discretion was reasonable.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence of actual water usage was also dismissed as it did not relate to a question of law.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders and to lift the certificate of stay.

The tenant, who had a history of non-payment of rent and had provided dishonoured cheques, repeatedly sought adjournments of the motion on medical grounds, which were contradicted by his own doctor.

The court found the tenant was attempting to avoid service and delay the proceedings.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed as frivolous and an abuse of process, and the sheriff was directed to give possession of the premises to the landlord.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed its application for an above-guideline rent increase related to lobby renovations.

The Adjudicator had dismissed the claim due to missing schedules in the contract and concerns about a non-arms-length relationship between the landlord's agent and the contractor.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Adjudicator erred in law by relying on an irrelevant corporate relationship and breached procedural fairness by failing to consider the landlord's requests to file the missing documents.

The matter was remitted to a different adjudicator for rehearing.

The Grand River Conservation Authority appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal finding that the Tenant Protection Act applied to seasonal cottage lot leases.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation that the s. 3(a) exemption for seasonal accommodation only applies to commercial establishments like hotels or campgrounds, not to these cottage lots.

However, the Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to determine whether a prior mediated settlement between the parties, which purported to exclude the Act's application, was valid under s. 181(2) of the Act.

The appellants appealed a decision finding the respondents acted reasonably under a Dock License Agreement and were entitled to reimbursement for municipal taxes.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the respondents acted reasonably.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, declaring that the respondents were not entitled to a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act because they never received possession of the vessel for storage, as the appellants continued to occupy it as their home.

Following the disposition of several appeals, the court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful municipal parties.

The court applied the criteria under Rule 57.01, considering the complexity of the proceedings and the amounts at stake.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis to the City of Mississauga, the City of Burlington, the Region of Halton, and Peel Region, with some reductions made to the amounts claimed to ensure they were fair and reasonable.

Following the dismissal of two related appeals brought by groups of developers, the successful municipal respondents sought costs.

The City of Mississauga sought partial indemnity costs of $70,379.25, while the Region of Halton and City of Burlington sought full indemnity costs of approximately $176,000.

The Court of Appeal determined that costs should follow the event on a partial indemnity scale.

Considering the complexity of the issues, the prior proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board and Divisional Court, and the consolidated hearing, the court awarded $50,000 to Mississauga and $50,000 to Halton and Burlington.

Developers appealed decisions of the Divisional Court regarding the interpretation of 'conflict' under O. Reg. 82/98 between pre-existing subdivision agreements and municipal development charge by-laws.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court correctly applied a standard of correctness to the Ontario Municipal Board's decisions.

The Court affirmed that a conflict exists only if the subdivision agreement, properly interpreted, precludes the infrastructure charges imposed by the development charge by-law.

The appeals and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) ruling.

The OMB had found that the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (OPA 2), which restricted the demolition and conversion of rental housing, was illegal and conflicted with the Tenant Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal held that while the OMB had limited jurisdiction to determine whether OPA 2 was an official plan within the meaning of the Planning Act, it erred in concluding that the City lacked the authority to enact it.

The Court found that the Planning Act permitted municipalities to include policies ensuring an adequate supply of rental housing.

Furthermore, OPA 2 did not conflict with the Tenant Protection Act, as dual compliance was possible.

The appeal was dismissed.

Several municipalities appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the interpretation of transitional provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The OMB had ruled that pre-existing subdivision agreements requiring developers to pay lot levies conflicted with new development charge by-laws, thereby exempting developers from paying the new charges.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the OMB erred in law.

The Court ruled that a conflict only exists if the subdivision agreement expressly forbids the imposition of future development charges.

Consequently, the municipalities' appeals were generally allowed, and the developers' appeals were dismissed, though developers were entitled to credits for both eligible and ineligible capital costs previously paid.

The appellants appealed a tribunal decision allowing a rent increase based on capital expenditures.

The tribunal had found the expenditures were not 'unreasonable' under s. 138(7) of the Act.

The Divisional Court held that the tribunal applied a legally flawed and overly narrow definition of 'unreasonable' by limiting it to non-arm's length transactions or frivolous expenditures.

The court also found the tribunal erred by ignoring the landlord's potential double recovery from coin-operated laundry machines.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a re-hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision finding no conflict between a municipal by-law imposing development charges on commercial/industrial developments and a prior financing agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the agreement's silence regarding non-residential development charges did not create a conflict with the by-law under section 14(4) of the Development Charges Act.

The court affirmed that the by-law and the agreement could stand together.

The Ontario Jockey Club applied for a teletheatre licence for a location in Markham.

The application was considered incomplete by the Administration because it lacked correspondence from the local municipality stating they had no objections.

After a hearing, the Ontario Racing Commission denied the application without prejudice, inviting the applicant to resubmit when complete.